New Congress Is Most Diverse Ever. Who Cares?

The usually respectable Wall Street Journal has on its website a ridiculous article that should be seen as offensive to all thinking voters. It is about the new Congress that was sworn in yesterday and is titled “In a Diverse New Congress, Several ‘Firsts.'” (You have to be a subscriber to read it on WSJ.com, but Yahoo ran it as well.)

It reads, in part:

“[T]he House will have its first Hindu member,…”

So?

“…its first female combat veterans…”

So?

“…and its first openly bisexual member. The Senate will have its first Buddhist.”

So?

“[T]he Republican conference [is] made up overwhelmingly of white, Christian males.”

So?

Then it reports that Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the new chairman of the House Republican campaign arm, says, “We will have a very focused and concerted effort in terms of the diversity of our candidates. We’re going to be effective in our recruiting.”

What kind of malarkey is that? Is Congress electing its members or are citizen voters electing them? There is no prohibition against gays or Buddhists or women from running as Republicans. It is not that Republicans are prejudiced against non-white non-Christians; it is that non-white non-Christians are prejudiced against Republicans. The gay former congressman Barney Frank could have run as a Republican if he wanted to, but he did not hold Republican beliefs and so chose not to run as one. If he were a Republican and had Republican views–that is, anti-government-marriage, fiscally responsible, etc.–then voters would have voted for him.

The Wall Street Journal continues with this interesting note:

“For the first time, white men will be a minority among House Democrats….”

This is something the Democrats will consider a feather in their kufis, but what it actually means is that House Democrats no longer represent a majority of the country.

It continues:

“Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii will be the first female combat veterans in Congress,…”

So?

“…with the later [sic] also the chamber’s first Hindu.”

So?

“Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, is the first openly bisexual person elected to Congress.”

So?

“[S]he lists her religious affiliation as none.”

So?

“The new Senate will have that chamber’s first Buddhist in Mazie Hirono….The Senate will also have its first openly gay member in Tammy Baldwin….”

And? So?

Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Sinema are part of the largest group of openly gay members of Congress in history. Among them are Mark Takano, an Asian-American Democrat from California, who will be the chamber’s first openly gay ethnic minority. In all, six members of the new House are openly gay.

What’s their point?

Conservatives don’t care if you’re white or black or gay or straight; just be a competent Constitutionalist and you will receive our vote.

Why do liberals treasure diversity over competence? Why is one’s skin color, so long as it’s not white, seen as a bonus? Why do liberals care one way or the other?

It is because liberals feel and conservatives think. It requires zero critical-thinking skills and a profusion of emotions to care about diversity, but it requires brains to care about competence.

Vote with your brains next time, America; not your feelings.

[js-disqus]